flash image gallery - DPChallenge Forums

07/21/2004 08:19:01 PM · #26

//www.propellermediaworks.com/flash/

the main page offers the html option as well - though i haven't looked at it.

Message edited by author 2004-07-21 20:19:55.

TechnoShroom

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/21/2004 08:28:32 PM · #27

Originally posted by Pedro:

for all the flash haters - what do you use as an alternative that's as cool as that xylem interactive site Soup pointed out? I'm just about to re-design my site, and was going to learn flash because I've seen so many swanky Flash sites. I'm open to dissuasion if there's a decent alternative.

Define "cool".

Just so you know where I'm coming from.... When I was growing up and just learning to write I would show my dad my homework. He would comment on how I made the whole page "look" pretty but the text was difficult to read. In other words, "swanky" instead of usable.

Flash is a lot like that. Flash designs generally make things look pretty at the expense of functionality. When I look at the xylem site I see text on the left that is too small and to low in contrast to read without getting very close to the monitor. On the right it's only slightly better. Standard accessibility options do not function in Flash.

The vast sea of negative space at the top of the page makes the whole thing seem even more compacted while the scroll bars indicate that there is additional content when in reality there isn't. This brings up the locked size issue. Good for designers, bad for usability.

Waiting for the initial animations to finish as well as the needless animation every time you click a link is tedious at best. No method of skipping the animations (which everyone uses so it seems pointless to put them in in the beginning) and no method to turn off animations once you are in the site. Not to mention there is no indication of where you are going before you click an image. No alt text pops up to tell you additional information, no status info to be seen.

You also can't bookmark any particular point that is of interest to you. This may not be an issue in the xylem site but on a site where you are potentially going to sell you're photos I would think that you would want to allow somebody to have ready access to the image they want to purchase.

As was discussed previously the back button takes you back to the beginning of the animation where you again have to wait instead of taking you to the last item you visited.

Sound. I haven't met anyone that likes sound on a website. Or I should say sound that emanates from the site without specifically telling it to make a sound. Having a way of turning off sound just isn't good enough IMO.

Links... One of the great things about standard HTML is that visited links can be made to look different than unvisited. It gives easy to follow visual clues as to what you've seen and where you've been. I don't know if Flash designers simply ignore that or it's not built into flash but I generally find it frustrating.

Random "flashy" things. Again, having some text or design element appear randomly may make the site overall more pretty but it is quite distracting to somebody who is actually trying to get information.

So after all this what I'm saying is if you're goal is form over function then Flash is the way to go. Flash is great for a media experience. You can pack a lot of design elements in and have them display with more precision on more platforms than html and css. However, if function is your primary goal then Flash isn't the best option.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/21/2004 09:16:40 PM · #28

it depends on how you use it.

flash isn't static.

and i can see where you're coming from.
on the other hand - i am tired of static.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/21/2004 10:08:17 PM · #29

About 99% of the time, the presence of Flash on a website constitutes a usability disease. Although there are rare occurrences of good Flash design (it even adds value on occasion), the use of Flash typically lowers usability. In most cases, we would be better off if these multimedia objects were removed.

Flash: 99% Bad

P.S. I value Jakob Nielsen's insight into web usability, and think folks who design web sites should at least be familiar with the issues he raises in his bi-weekly column.

Message edited by author 2004-07-21 22:18:16.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/21/2004 10:25:08 PM · #30

dated 2002 - the flash part.
and a terrible site in and of itself.
i find that hard to read, and too much put on one plate.

sorry - i disagree

Message edited by author 2004-07-21 22:25:21.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/21/2004 10:34:30 PM · #31

Originally posted by soup:

sorry - i disagree

To each his own. I think his bio shows that the immense amount of work he has done deserves some consideration when it comes to "web usability". He's been interviewed just a few times.

Message edited by author 2004-07-21 22:35:46.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/22/2004 08:03:03 AM · #32

informative, yes
eye appealing, no.
not saying i dont give him credit - but that is an extreme way to use the web in the opposite to a interactive flash site.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

07/22/2004 09:06:25 AM · #33

I really don't see the problem with Flash.
I see a problem with badly designed Flash websites.
I'm working on using the same gallery (Imageweaver), but with code that allows people to use their back and forward buttons as normal with HTML, and the ability to bookmark individual photos in the usual way. This functionality is built into Flash MX, it's just that not many developers are using it yet.

siggi

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/22/2004 09:13:04 AM · #34

Originally posted by Pedro:

you can use java script to do something similar but then you need to be good at programming or know someone who is.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/22/2004 09:48:59 AM · #35

Maybe I use the web differently than most people, but when I go online and search for something, it is because I'm looking for information. I want to be able to get to whatever it is I'm looking for as quickly as possible, without being slowed down by some designer's "cool eye candy effects" and having my speakers jump to life with silly noises and sound effects every time I click or move the mouse.

Take a photographer's portfolio. In a normal, HTML/JavaScript based gallery, I click the "Next" button and am taken to the next image as fast as I can transfer it over the Internet (in most cases, this occurs in a split second). Now look at the experience of a Flash-based gallery. I click some icon that I think is the next button and there is some sound effect, then the old picture fades away as it scrolls up, then some horizontal and vertical lines traverse up, down and across the picture as the new image scrolls in from the right. 5 seconds later, I finally see the next image in the gallery. After having to deal with that for 2 or 3 images, I just close the site...

Flash does have its place on the net. It is perfect for online-animation based sites, like HomeStarRunner. But it should not be used to add unnecessary eye candy just for the sake of having cool animated transitions every time the user clicks the mouse. Make the information you want to publish on the net available, but don't make navigating it an annoying "chore" for those interested in viewing your site.

I guess my final point is this: as the responses in this thread show, having a Flash-based site will reduce the number of potential visitors...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/22/2004 10:10:02 AM · #36

Find the navigation not very intuative and hard to read, particularly the text that pops up over the (very small) thumbnails.

Actual images are also really small and hard to see. Another person who doesn't really see the advantage flash is giving you in this case.

07/22/2004 07:11:51 PM · #37

i plan on offering larger versions.
the gallery has that option, i just disabled it - until i figure out what i am going to do.

the site isn't really an informative type of site, and so i think it's a bit more open to abstracter methods of design.

the images are 320x214 - half the size they are in the profiles here.
at 800x600 res they are actually fairly screen filling. they are roughly a third of the screen.

the way the menu is now - i'm not happy with either, and am working on another version of it - the image size as it is now is to try to keep the jpegs under 30K each with dial up users in mind. they will be linkable to open in a secondary window with a larger version eventually.

@bobster lobster - i'd be curious to know how your bookmarking goes, and have been looking at the accesiblity options MX offers - though they seem to be a bit cumbersome.

because you have to have a plugin for flash to work - i think in general it works like it's supposed to for most peopple - coding javascript, php, and database integration doesn't tend to be as overly accessible. though i am no expert on them - i do know how to get around with that type of thing.

i appreciate all the feed back, and have it in the back of my mind.

i was planning on coding my own gallery - and happened upon the current set up in the info search process - i credit the author on the page - there are things i wish were different - and things i am content with - one being i didn't have to spend 12 hours debugging actionscript. - i posted it for exactly the type of repsonses i have gotten, and just to see if anyone else had used it...

thanks again.

01/29/2005 11:15:19 PM · #38

i've made some updates, mainly tidying up the navigation, and being able to load larger images.

outside of those who dislike flash sites, i would like some feed back.
tomorrow ( hopefully ) i will tighten up the menu, and add a splash page to opt out of flash.

thanks...

route108

Prof_Fate

01/30/2005 01:56:37 AM · #39

Originally posted by Pedro:

don't use flash. stick to html.
When i moved to Firefox i gave up on the plug in thing as much as possible. flash does not seem to be too invasive (as quicktime player most certainly is) but since SOOOO few sites i visit use it, and then only as an intro page, i don't think it has much widespread appeal. could just be early in the adoption phase maybe.

petrakka

01/30/2005 02:58:39 AM · #40

soup, i think you have a great site. As far as I'm concerned you have a tactful use of flash, and I think that is when is at its best. I find the site easy to use, and graphically very appealing, complemented by good photography.

As people have said here, when you are on the internet you expect to find information. I think this is true to a point. When I visit a photographer's site I don't expect to find information but visually appealing content. I like it in this situation when good visual art(web design) complements good visual art (your photography). I think this site is very professional looking and it the layout makes your images more appealing than they might be on bland html type layout that some professionals even use. The site is not overdone at all, just has good subtleties that don't take a long time load or offer distractions.

I made my page out of flash as well, and everyone I have showed it to that isn't opinionated on technology (i.e. most people) has given me good feedback. Although my knowledge of flash is obviously limited I feel it makes the site easy to use. I'd like your opinions on my site as well if you have the time. Anyways, I'd say leave it how it is. I think most people will like it that way. (but what do i know)

01/30/2005 10:27:23 AM · #41

in no way does this answer Pedro's question. and also Flash is in no way in the early adoption phases. i'm sorry you are afraid of plugins... i don't think there is anything out there with as powerful a set of design tools as Flash...

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

petrakka - i'll check out your site later today.... thanks ;} there will be some information posted to mine shortly.

EDIT: what screen resolution do you use?

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 11:01:51.

buggedcom

Sony DSC-V1

02/08/2005 05:26:51 AM · #42

Hi,

I'm the author of the afore mentioned Flash gallery component imageWeaver. And I see both points of view to the whole flash vs html thing. However this said the inusability of flash sites and particularly galleries is a lack of attention by designers and developers.

This might seem like a shameless plugg of my own project but i truly believe that imageWeaver 2.x.x reduces many of the problems by offering much of the functionality that most flash galleries do not have. It is important to remember however that imageWeaver is only an engine for your gallery and not the final solution. Whilst providing the ability to offer basic expected gallery protocols it is up to the designer to implement them. And sadly i often see with uses of imageWeaver that most people use it as a basic and do not go the next step.

buggedcom

Sony DSC-V1

02/08/2005 05:46:09 AM · #43

also just to let you know anyone who is interested imageWeaver 2.x.x will have a CMS released in the next few weeks, with full developer / client permissions system. It's based in html / php, purely to get the backend running then a conversion to flash will be made. (This was a shameless plug. hehe)